|
Had a 16U tourney this last weekend that had two OBS calls (well 1 call and 1 no call) on the same team that lead to an ejection. Situation1: Runner rounds 3rd F2 at plate, throw coming in from outfield, F2 blocks plate, "is sitting on plate before she has the ball." (according to FU on field). Play at plate PU calls runner out, FU steps in and awards runner home on OBS call. Def coach upset and has words with FU.
Next game for them (back to back) 2nd inning catcher has ball and blocks home plate and gets runner out. Coach wants OBS as they got called against them in the last game. After words with PU, asst. coach gets promoted as Manager is leaving.
I was off for both games, did not see situation 1 as scorers building was blocking me, but did not like FU's explaintion of why he called OBS, he said "As runner was rounding 3rd, catcher was already blocking the plate, she was sitting on it when she caught the ball." What I didn't like about that is #1 if runner contacted, or altered her travel in any way prior to her having the ball then I am ok with that, like we have discussed here before. But what I didn't like was the call based on her being in the way. Does everyone agree here that there has to be OBS (runner forced to change something due to defense) before OBS can be called?? Or does anyone agree just being in the way is good enough, even if runner is not adversly affected by their actions?? And we won't even get into the FU basically overruling the PU whole other story!
I saw situation #2 and there was no OBS, had ball 2 steps prior to tag at plate, coach did not understand the difference between having and not having the ball I think! Or maybe the 1st call was bad based on perceived OBS with there might not have been any.
|